Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-review-and-namespace-01.txt>

From: Steve Gonczi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:18:06 -0500

Hello,

Category 1) of this draft seems to be a bit strictly defined.
 IMO there is no new option that could possible fit into it. We may as well 
do away with it.

Think about it:
How can you possibly introduce something NEW, if :

 " Options in this category MUST NOT require changes to the DHCP
 protocol, server, client, or BOOTP relay agent implementations."

/sG

---

From: "Glenn Waters" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:14:35 -0500

We may be arguing about semantics however, our server is data driven and new
options do not require any modification of the code for the new options to
work. I would not consider a new option that can be data driven to be
changing the protocol.  The only piece left is the client.  I would suspect
clients would have to change to make use of the new option, however they
probably can just "pick up" the new option data without having to change
client DHCP code.

Just my 2 cents worth.

/gww

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Steve Gonczi
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2000 10:18
To: DHCPv4 discussion list
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-review-and-namespace-01.txt>

Hello,

Think about it:

/sG